In Wilmington and Weldon Railroad Company v. King, Executor, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a state could tax a railroad company's property located within its borders. The railroad company argued that the tax was unconstitutional because it violated the Contract Clause of the United States Constitution. The Court held that the tax was constitutional because it did not interfere with the company's contractual obligations. The Court reasoned that the tax was a valid exercise of the state's power to tax and did not impair the company's contractual obligations. The Court also held that the tax was not a taking of the company's property without just compensation, as the company had not been deprived of its property. The Court concluded that the tax was a valid exercise of the state's power to tax and did not violate the Contract Clause.

In the case of Wilmington and Weldon Railroad Company v. King, Executor, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a railroad company could be held liable for damages caused by its negligence in failing to repair a bridge that collapsed under the weight of an approaching train. The majority opinion found that since there was no contract between the parties involved, and because it would be too burdensome on railroads if they were required to make repairs without any contractual obligation or consideration from those using their services, liability should not attach in this instance. Justice Field dissented from this decision arguing that even though there may have been no contract between them, it is still reasonable for railroads to take responsibility for ensuring safe passage over bridges they own and operate as part of their service offerings. He argued further that allowing such negligence would create an unsafe environment where passengers are at risk due to inadequate maintenance standards set by companies who do not want additional costs associated with maintaining safety measures.